CHANGING CATCH: Regulators have traditionally imposed limits on fishing in response to dwindling stocks, but experts say that approach may not work in the face of climate change.
Image: MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
GLOUCESTER, Mass.-- Pete Libra is frustrated. The 40-year-old cod fisherman sees lots of fish in the ocean, and he wants to catch more. Fishing authorities see fewer, and want him to catch less.
"I'm not a scientist. But I see the fish," said Libra. His is the voice of many of the fishermen in Gloucester, the heart of a once-great fishing industry that powered fledgling America and underwrote New England's economy.
Many fishermen here feel threatened by a sweeping new set of fishing limits imposed this spring by authorities trying to rebuild fish stocks they say are depleted by overfishing and facing pressures that include climate change. Federal fishing regulators have traditionally reacted to falling stocks by putting additional curbs on fishing. But that approach may not work in the face of larger environmental changes such as global warming.
The chief fishing grounds for Massachusetts watermen are Gulf of Maine and the Georges Bank, the most westward of the famous Atlantic fishing banks off the North American coast. They are among the most famous and historically productive fishing grounds in the world; their collapse in the mid-1990s was equally historic, and the debate over how to manage the depleted stocks while nursing them back to health has been hotly contested ever since.
But the arguments are changing as scientists see more evidence of the coming impact of climate change on the Atlantic fisheries. Both the Gulf of Maine and the Georges Bank sit at the southern edge of the cod's preferred range. Fishermen have adapted to stock changes over the years, but their options may be dwindling.
"The question of the influence of fishing and the influence of the environment is tangled up," said Brian Rothschild, a professor of marine science at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who has studied aquatic stocks for more than five decades.
"There is no question that as some of the environment changes occur, some of the fish stocks are going to change," he said. "We don't know enough about it to know what's going to increase and what's going to decrease."
That gives a gloomy uncertainty to the future for New England commercial fishermen. There were an estimated 2,000 working fishermen in Gloucester in the 1940s; 50 years later the number had dropped to 400, according to a 1997 study. Fishermen glumly expect their numbers to continue to shrink.
The warming waters may hasten that. A 2007 study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at codfish catch records over four decades. It concluded what fishermen who know this cold-loving fish would have predicted: As the bottom water temperature increased, the probability of catching a cod decreased.
Last year, a federal effort to coordinate research, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, found ocean warming already was forcing a migration of some species.
"The northward shifts we have seen in the area are due in part to climate change. We are starting to see some of the effects of global climate change in our area," said Janet Nye, a NOAA researcher working out of Woods Hole, Mass. She studied historical fish records and found that of 36 northwest Atlantic species, almost half had moved northward in 40 years as water temperatures warmed. She predicted the traditional stocks of cold-water fish are likely to be replaced by croaker and red hake, fish normally found farther south.
Many fishermen switched to lobster as winter flounder, a cold-water fish once abundant in fishing boat holds, declined. But lobster stocks are stressed in some areas now. Biologists on a multi-state Fisheries Commission committee have found that warmer waters, disease and fishing have depleted lobster stocks, and they recently recommended a five-year ban on lobstering from Cape Cod to Virginia.
"It's regulation after regulation after regulation," complained Michael Dearborn, 66, a commercial fisherman since 1969. "They treat the industry like a centipede, cutting off one leg at a time, snip, snip, snip, until it starves."
"Some of the fish stocks are showing improvement," acknowledged Maggie Mooney-Seus, a spokeswoman for NOAA, the agency responsible for enforcing the limits. "But there is too much fishing pressure on a lot of them. Right now, fishermen are going to have to have cuts."
Quotas on the fishermen remain the chief mechanism to react to dwindling stocks. Those quotas remain largely a function of numbers of fish caught versus a sampled estimate of the numbers of fish in any one stock; there is little room for forward calculations about how climate change will skew the future.
"I don't think the fisheries managers are equipped to quantify the effects of global warming at this point," said Peter Baker, manager of the New England Fisheries Campaign for the non-profit Pew Environment Group. "They have no tools.
"One of the grim realities of global warming is that it is bringing change to fisheries. There are going to be regime changes in the oceans and management is going to have to adapt to that," he said.
Greg Walinski believes he has seen first-hand the workings of warmer waters on fish stock. The 53-year-old Cape Cod fisherman used to hunt for large bluefin tuna.
"In the '80s and '90s we would get 60 to 80 giant bluefin in a season," he said. "But we started to see less and less. It got to a point where it wasn't even worth going out. Most of the big fish are up in Canada," he said. "We get the little bluefin that used to be further south."
He switched to cod, but in what seems to be a repeat of the pattern, Walinski said he finds himself chasing the fish further and further out. He now travels 120 miles in a 35-foot boat - an arduous and somewhat dangerous commute - to reach Georges Bank for codfish.
"I don't think we understand the impacts of climate change very well at all," said Paul Parker, who works with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. "We are struggling to understand it all. It's difficult to discern what causes what."
For example, the fishermen say there is a bumper crop of dogfish shark, which strip their hooks and gobble up groundfish. It is tough, they say, to sort out whether fish populations are hit harder by human fishing, the sharks' appetite, climate change or some other environmental shift.
Whatever the cause, there is a need for closer husbandry of the fish stocks, Parker said. The old system put daily limits on catches, and fishermen "were throwing overboard thousands of pounds of dead and wasted fish every day" when more fish came up in their nets than allowed, he said.
The new regulations attempt to give fishermen a share of the overall stock quotas, to limit the harvest in sync with the stock's rise or fall.
But Gloucester fishermen are unconvinced of the need for change and unhappy with the new regulations.
"This is the end. It's a slow, agonizing death," said a 55-year-old crewman on a huge drag-net fishing boat docked in Gloucester.
"The fish are steady now," added Joey Ciaramitaro, 42, who supplies bait and buys the catch from boats in Gloucester. With the new regulations, "they've gone too far."
NOAA's Mooney-Seus said of the 20 species of groundfish covered by regulations for the northeast seaboard, 13 still are listed as underpopulated and overfished. Haddock and redfish have rebounded, and there has been a spike in numbers of cod in the Gulf of Maine, according to NOAA studies.
But the regulators say they have seen little evidence of a similar rebound in cod on the George's Bank, and some other cold-water species, like winter flounder and pollock, remain low.
Libra, back in Gloucester, has been on the water since he finished high school, when he and a buddy fixed up a decrepit old cabin cruiser they got for $1. "This is what I always wanted to do," he said, pausing while working on the engine of his current boat, his fourth.
He is not sure there is a future in fishing for another generation. He faces a slew of regulations, uncertainty over fish stocks and the prospects of climate change. But he vows to keep going as long as he can.
"I don't know anything else to do."
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentThe article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't think we understand the impacts of climate change very well at all," said Paul Parker, who works with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. "We are struggling to understand it all. It's difficult to discern what causes what."
I suggest the fishermen consider the impact that over-harvesting might have had...
Why is global warming still being reported as fact after Climategate? It is nothing more than politically motivated pseudo-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's time for the Lloyd Sirotas of the world to step off. Or confine yourselves to such quasi-infotainment sites as Faux News.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicar9 is mixing apples and oranges as to science vs politics. Climate measurements are indisputably trending upward as to average temperatures globally, though any location still show wild swings upwards and downwards. Science agrees on that fact, and the majority believe that humans are part of the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the free fall rate of buildings, and the chemical evidence of thermite in the dust clout residue at the WTC buildings, I agree that the government analysis misrepresents what happened. Those three buildings were not brought down symmetrically by accident but by pre-planned demolition masked by a separate event of two planes.
Lloyd Sirotas, read the climate gate emails, then come back and tell me which ones are incriminating. I've read them all, there is absolutely nothing there budy. Plus all the scientists were rightfully exonerated. But your still pushing this very weak arguement, why? You just don't want to beleive man can teraform a planet? or is it that you beleive god will protetct us from our mistakes. These are the only two options I see for you, since your science is based on beleif and not evidence and calculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why is global warming still being reported as fact after Climategate?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess you failed to read the July 1st article "Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again". That's o.k. though, I don't actually expect the denier crowd to be up on current events.
jtdwyer, overfishing IS an issue, but it doesn't wholly explain changes in location and distribution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main problem is that pollution, disease, and global warming are not something that the fisheries department can control.
The only tools they have to deal with the situation are regulations, and even if fishing stopped completely, the traditional New England fisheries would still move north. It's NOT a complete solution, but they don't have any other options.
If the temperatures were constant at good levels for the fish in question, regulations and price could be manipulated for sustainable fishing.
Climategate was found to be false
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismriphysician,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not a matter of true or false, guilty or innocent. There was simply nothing there. it was a manufactured scandal. Read the emails, there is nothing...
Alteredstory - As I understand, regulations have for many years failed to reduce overfishing. IMO the main problem worldwide is that fisheries have used increasingly more efficient methods to harvest the diminishing populations of fish. This trend can be seen in the depletion of fish in the rivers of Europe by the Middle Ages, long before global warming, and has continued essentially unabated since.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat most of you good folks fail to realize is that fish populations are just about all on the upswing. This is a fact. How could this be if overfishing was occuring? I fish for a living in New England and Mid atlantic waters and can tell you first hand that I have never in my 37 years of doing this have I seen so much fish. Thats not to say that they don't need protection, on the contrary. However the protections need to be rational and allow continuation of a robust food supply that is healthy and sustainable. Most fisherman nowadays are very aware that you can't kill the goose that layed the golden egg.and are very responsible stewards of the resource. Unfortunately, big business has become involved beacause there is wealth that can be derived from the sea and they smell the money. Much like the family farm that is going by the wayside as large agribusines's goble them up so too are the independant small bussinessmen who make up much of our coastal communities. This is tragic. Make no mistake about it, fisheries management has become extreemly politicized and what many green groups who are advocating for is not about saving the resource. No on the contrary its about control. We have been demonized as wreckless money hungry SOB'S with no regard for the future. How would that even make sense when we are all long term fishermen who have chosen this proffesion for a lifetime. If the corporate giants get ahold of this resource do you think they will nurture it with kid gloves. Who's kidding who here. These pigs are beholden to nothin nbut the bottom line and their stockholders. So, who do you want to have this responsibility?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat most of you good folks fail to realize is that fish populations are just about all on the upswing. This is a fact. How could this be if overfishing was occuring? I fish for a living in New England and Mid atlantic waters and can tell you first hand that I have never in my 37 years of doing this have I seen so much fish. Thats not to say that they don't need protection, on the contrary. However the protections need to be rational and allow continuation of a robust food supply that is healthy and sustainable. Most fisherman nowadays are very aware that you can't kill the goose that layed the golden egg.and are very responsible stewards of the resource. Unfortunately, big business has become involved beacause there is wealth that can be derived from the sea and they smell the money. Much like the family farm that is going by the wayside as large agribusines's goble them up so too are the independant small bussinessmen who make up much of our coastal communities. This is tragic. Make no mistake about it, fisheries management has become extreemly politicized and what many green groups who are advocating for is not about saving the resource. No on the contrary its about control. We have been demonized as wreckless money hungry SOB'S with no regard for the future. How would that even make sense when we are all long term fishermen who have chosen this proffesion for a lifetime. If the corporate giants get ahold of this resource do you think they will nurture it with kid gloves. Who's kidding who here. These pigs are beholden to nothin nbut the bottom line and their stockholders. So, who do you want to have this responsibility?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoel Hovanesian - That would be wonderful news, but it does seem to contradict much of the generally available information regarding the approaching extinction of blue fin tuna and many other species. I recently watched a very compelling documentary, but can't recall the name...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was released by Mooney-Seusune june 25 Fish Facts: Georges Bank haddock and Gulf of Maine haddock are rebuilt and are being harvested at sustainable levels. Gulf of Maine cod is no longer overfished and is at a stock size that has not been seen in 30 years. Acadian redfish is very close to or fully rebuilt, although that determination awaits confirmation by a stock assessment. While they are not fully rebuilt, increases in many of the stocks in the groundfish complex are being observed for the first time in nearly a decade.. @ months ago Pollack was reduced 75 % because the stock was in trouble now mirasculously pollack is ok here is NMFS says The current 2010 annual catch limit for pollock is 3,148 metric tons, 2,748 metric tons of which is allotted to the groundfish fleet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in a June 16 groundfish committee meeting NOAA staffers said they hope to be able to increase the Pollock annual catch limit to 16 thousand [metric tons.], according to a NOAA statement.
Lets see according to NMFS overfishing is not occuring altho not all stocks are fully rebuilt of the stocks tthat the mid atlantic deals overfishing is not occuring and many are fully rebuilt. But if you read this article it sounds like the ocean is barren. Or is that what this article was suppose to imply. Why is it so hard for people to use current dat that shows stocks are in good shape but jump at info that says something is in trouble.
Mooney-Seus must forget to read her agencies press releases. June 25 from NMFS Fish Facts: Georges Bank haddock and Gulf of Maine haddock are rebuilt and are being harvested at sustainable levels. Gulf of Maine cod is no longer overfished and is at a stock size that has not been seen in 30 years. Acadian redfish is very close to or fully rebuilt, although that determination awaits confirmation by a stock assessment. While they are not fully rebuilt, increases in many of the stocks in the groundfish complex are being observed for the first time in nearly a decade. She also new the pollack assesment was going to change the dogfish was going to change skates were going to change.U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke today announced that he is raising the pollock limit six-fold, from 6 to 36 million pounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrevious recent actions have also raised the spiny dogfish limit from 12 to 15 million pounds and revised the skate limit upward from 67.5 to 90.5 million pounds. Another pending action proposes to increase the red crab limit from 3.56 to 3.91 million pounds.
Mid Atlantic Council stated none of the stocks it managed are being overfished and many are bebuilt or close to being rebuilt. It seems this artcle was meant to imply not enough is being done to eliminate fishermen yet all stocks are rebuilding or are rebuilt. Mooney-Seus needs to remember the press releases she puts out and leave her desire to eradicate fishermen home. A house cleaning is definitely needed in this agency after trawlgate shreddergate OIG report of criminal use of fines .
Ahh yes and lets not forget top administrator at NOAA'S ties to EDF/PEW and their desire to privatize our nations fisheries. This plan would allow for fish allocations to be bought and sold by wall st. commodities brokers to the highest bidders. In fact wall st insider Michael Milken, remember him? His comments at the infamous Milken conference spoke of up to a 400% gain on these comodities. Now lets ask ourselves who we would want nurturing our nations coastal resources, fisherman who depend upon them year in and year out or wall st slobs who are only looking at the bottom line. Open your eyes people and stop drinking the green koolaid
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoel Hovanesian - On a possibly related story, a documentary film indicated that a Japanese or Korean conglomerate was harvesting blue fin tuna in ever increasing number and freezing the catch, insinuating that they would inventory the prized fish until they were depleted, at which time prices would skyrocket. Is it possible that unscrupulous trading techniques are being applied to a purportedly dwindling global sea fish supply while demand and price increase with the market population in time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJtdwyer why is it that every time someone points out that new england fish stocks are rebounding ,the enviromental people have to bring up something that is happening in another country or use data that is out dated or distorted. NMFS reluctanly releases positive news but relishes bad news. 6 months ago NMFS was glowing about giving the fisherman a67% reduction in pollack and now NMFS says we are fully rebuilt and now the better than 50% higher then befor the 67% cut. Do you wonder if NMFS and enviro groups doctor the numbers to fit their agenda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article was about new england fisheries I thought what we do with bluefin will not affect that stock one bit that stock is managed by ICCAT the american fisherman has been doing more then its fair share with bluefin but until other countries get serius it will not get resolved. The american fisherman is the most regulated in the world and all our stocks are rebuilding.
illusion1256 - I am guilty of muddying the waters re. American fish stock management. I apologize for that, but the issues addressed by this article are complex and convoluted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not knowledgeable of fishing or fish stock management. I'm not even an interested amateur fisherman. I'm most concerned about the quality of life my grandchildren can hope for, given the conditions they are being left with. In that regard I'm most concerned about the continuing unmanaged growth of the human population and its dependence on global food sources that are unlikely to keep up with demands placed upon them. Not to mention what I consider to be the unpredictable effects of global warming.
I congratulate the successes of fish stock management in the U.S., but this result seems to have little impact on global fishstocks. This article begins by quoting a frustrated cod fisherman. I don't know much about it, but aren't any effects of U.S. observance of cod fishing quotas being reaped by the fisheries of other countries?
Meanwhile, I think the general premise of this article, that global warming will reduce fish stocks independently of any effects of fish stock management, is generally valid.
However, I'm concerned that the world's fishing industry will use this argument to deflect the more immediate influence of overharvesting. But I don't know much about it.
I do know that I have two wonderful granddaughters and a grandson who may suffer the legacy of prior generations. We knew in the 1970s that we were destroying the naturally replenished environment, just like the Europeans who ignorantly consumed their regional forests by the Middle Ages, yet we continued to focus mostly on our selfish desires and personal objectives at all costs. Aren't we successful?
If only those living in the future could enjoy similar living conditions. Perhaps they can survive for a while in the conditions left to them, if they're very strong and resourceful.
jtdwyer- I am a newcomer to the commercial fishing industry myself, but I can assure you that what Joel Hovanesian and Illision both say is 100% accurate. While many other countires from which the US imports fish- for example, your bluefin tuna concern- practice little or no sustainable fishing, the US fishery is the most regulated fishery in the world. However, by importing from other countries without sustainable practices, you can actually be aiding in the depletion of overall world stocks. The most sustainable and healthy thing you can do for your children and grandchildren is buy wild harvested, US fish. (Of the fish sold in the US 86% is imported from counties without sustainable practices and unregulated farms where fish are frequently found to contain serious toxins. Less than 1% of imported fish- the majority on the American market- is actually inspected, and of that 60% is rejected for poisons. American farmed fish still contain high levels of unhealthy substances, and can be harmful to health over a period of time- simply due to the fact that these animals do not live naturally and are not fed natural foods). Wild caught US fish is the purest form of protein available and is extremely sustainable. The only entity in this country more regulated than the fishery is the IRS. That's saying something. However, as both Mr Hovanesian and Illusion point out, many of the regulations are generated by certain environmental groups with their eyes set on financial gain. Many former employees of these groups are now head posistions in NOAA, Namtional Marine Fisheries Service, the regional fishery Councils, etc., and rather than taking strides to keep up to date and accurate scientific assessents of fish stocks are attempting to spend federal funds to advocate their prior agendas when working for the environmental groups. I by no means am bashing environmental stewardship and conservation- by no means. But what I am trying to say is that the fishermen that I have the priviledge to know are the most rue environmentalists I have ever met. Plus they are out there every day taking true assessments based on what they are continually seeing and hearing. Rather than take these into account the now "environmentalist driven" regulatory agencies block out their comments and requests. This works both ways-sometimes they fail to listen to fisherman's requests for more regulations on stocks they see declining and sometimes they fail to listen to fisherman's reports of higher stock counts. The bottom line is they fail to listen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuthermore, the data currntly used by NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service as the "current" status of New England fish stocks were taken in 2007 by a NOAA research vessel which was towing a net not designed by fishermen or a gear maker but by marine scientists (who may not exactly have the best idea of the sensitivity of net design since it is not their area of expertise). Anyway, due to their lack of knowledge and experience, they towed with the net actually closed the whole time. Therefore they did not catch fish. Therefore they said New England fish stocks were in decline. However, they have not attempted to correct any of the obviously egregiously distorted data. Instead, they slashed fisherman's quota's by huge percentages. And instead of directing federal funding towards new science, the new environmentally driven NOAA/NMFS/Council members are attempting to cut scientific research budgets by millions of dollars and redirect the funding into their prior environmentallist groups' programs and agendas. It is not only lacking any common sense, it is also corrput, which is why these agencies are under serious investigation by the Department of Commerce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's true, there are more fish here in MA than we've seen in 30 years. Special interests are driving our government. They are lying so they can steal our public resources. Wall St fish commodities will not be the answer to sustainability. Small scale family fishermen do practice sustainable fishing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this